Re: [Tools-discuss] Unpublished patent disclosure

[Jay Daley <exec-director@xxxxxxxx>]

(On a phone, so please forgive the crimes against typography that follow)

On 19 Apr 2023, at 5:19 pm, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



point out, making fields -- especially the patent or application

number -- mandatory is unreasonable because the discloser cannot
tell you what they don't know and we should not be doing
anything that discourages such disclosures.

I am far from confident that this ("do not discourage") attitude is the right one to have. The LLC and its counsel should decide if we really want to have people saying "I think this patent reads against RFC xxx"

Thankfully the LLC doesn’t have to make a judgement call here because we have a detailed policy to follow, RFC 8179, that says in section 5.4.1:

  An IPR disclosure must include the following information to the
   extent reasonably available to the discloser: (a) the numbers of any
   issued patents or published patent applications (or indicate that the
   disclosure is based on unpublished patent applications),

As I understand it, our systems merely enforce the policy, otherwise what’s the point of having a policy. If it goes beyond the policy, which has happened elsewhere, then that’s a bug that can be fixed. 

Jay

-- 

Jay Daley 

IETF Executive Director

___________________________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@xxxxxxxx - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss